Unedited photos

[allskolim]

Hey there!
Me and my friends were wondering if there is any place where you can find a collection of unedited photos, that can draw your attention. We were curious if nowadays, where digital manipulation is so common, there is a possibility to find a "pure" photo, that really makes you say "that's surely edited". Thanks in advance for any links.

Cheers,

Alex

 

[bigtwinky]

Google images might be a good start

Considering that photographers have their name and reputation tied into an image, it is to their advantage NOT to post an unedited final version.

How easy is it to find a rough copy of a movie? Not easy.

 

[Josh66]

To some extent, everything you see is 'edited' in some way...

Even in the film days.

If you shoot RAW, editing (or, at least, 'processing') is required.
(EDIT - If you shoot JPG, the same thing is still happening - it's just the camera doing it instead of you.)

Even when I scan my film, I'm doing tweaks to the curves, colors, saturation, etc before the final scan.
That is, before I even scan it - before it's even a file on my computer, editing is being done.

Some people see them as the same thing, but I think there is a difference between editing and processing.

Here is one that had basically no editing at all. I did do some minor tweaks to contrast, white balance - that sort of thing, but I didn't 'edit' anything in or out. It's basically straight out of the camera.



The starburst effect was done with a cross-screen filter on the lens, and the isolation of the glass was done with lighting.

 

[allskolim]

Please don't treat me like a moron, i wouldn't ask if i haven't checked google earlier. According to the rest of your post: That's understandable. But the photos I'm searching for are the ones, that were not necessarily taken by photographers with their "name", but still they are considerably "awesome" and appealing to the eye. What's more, it would be crucial when the photos were taken with no intention to be edited.

 

[table1349]

Sorry, don't know of any awesome, appealing to the eye, unedited, free to use photo sites.

 

[bigtwinky]

 

[KmH]

Hey there!
Me and my friends were wondering if there is any place where you can find a collection of unedited photos,.....

Every photograph ever made has been edited, to one degree or another.

Digital manipulation is no more common today than darkroom manipulation was in the days of film.

 

[Overread14 2]

Hey there!
Me and my friends were wondering if there is any place where you can find a collection of unedited photos,.....

Every photograph ever made has been edited, to one degree or another.

Digital manipulation is no more common today than darkroom manipulation was in the days of film.

+1

Remember when you shoot in JPEG mode in a digital camera the camera applies its own default in-camera editing to the shot. You can even adjust this (within limits) through the cameras menus.
This is no different to sending your roll of film to the chemist - backstage during the processing to a print from your negative they are making choices concerning the white balance; exposure etc... before printing.

The idea of a totally unedited photo doesn't really exist because photography is both a capture and processing process. You can't have one without the other and get the final product which is the printed photograph.

 

[skieur]

Please don't treat me like a moron, i wouldn't ask if i haven't checked google earlier. According to the rest of your post: That's understandable. But the photos I'm searching for are the ones, that were not necessarily taken by photographers with their "name", but still they are considerably "awesome" and appealing to the eye. What's more, it would be crucial when the photos were taken with no intention to be edited.

Sorry, but what you are saying is inherently contradictory as in don't treat me like a moron, but I do not know enough about photography to realize that there is NO SUCH THING as an unedited photograph.

My mother and I edited film photography probably before you were born.
Digital photography is just a little easier to edit.

skieur

 

[KenC]

Even beginners in the darkroom do all sorts of manipulation in development and printing. The experts can do unbelievable things. People sometimes act as though digital photography has undermined trust in the truth of photographic images, but check out some of the things that were done to photos many years before digital:

Amazon.com: Photo Fakery: The History and Techniques of Photographic Deception and Manipulation (9781574881660): Dino A. Brugioni: Books

 

[table1349]

Hey there!
Me and my friends were wondering if there is any place where you can find a collection of unedited photos,.....

Every photograph ever made has been edited, to one degree or another.

Digital manipulation is no more common today than darkroom manipulation was in the days of film.

Hey there!
Me and my friends were wondering if there is any place where you can find a collection of unedited photos,.....

Every photograph ever made has been edited, to one degree or another.

Digital manipulation is no more common today than darkroom manipulation was in the days of film.

+1

Remember when you shoot in JPEG mode in a digital camera the camera applies its own default in-camera editing to the shot. You can even adjust this (within limits) through the cameras menus.
This is no different to sending your roll of film to the chemist - backstage during the processing to a print from your negative they are making choices concerning the white balance; exposure etc... before printing.

The idea of a totally unedited photo doesn't really exist because photography is both a capture and processing process. You can't have one without the other and get the final product which is the printed photograph.

Please don't treat me like a moron, i wouldn't ask if i haven't checked google earlier. According to the rest of your post: That's understandable. But the photos I'm searching for are the ones, that were not necessarily taken by photographers with their "name", but still they are considerably "awesome" and appealing to the eye. What's more, it would be crucial when the photos were taken with no intention to be edited.

Sorry, but what you are saying is inherently contradictory as in don't treat me like a moron, but I do not know enough about photography to realize that there is NO SUCH THING as an unedited photograph.

My mother and I edited film photography probably before you were born.
Digital photography is just a little easier to edit.

skieur

Even beginners in the darkroom do all sorts of manipulation in development and printing. The experts can do unbelievable things. People sometimes act as though digital photography has undermined trust in the truth of photographic images, but check out some of the things that were done to photos many years before digital:

Amazon.com: Photo Fakery: The History and Techniques of Photographic Deception and Manipulation (9781574881660): Dino A. Brugioni: Books

O....M.....G.......NOOOoooooooooo. Don't tell me that the likes of Ansel Adams, Helmut Newton, Dorthea Lange, and Alfred Eisenstaedt ever edited a photograph in any way. AGhhhhhhhhhhhhh................................

 

[pbelarge]

Please don't treat me like a moron, i wouldn't ask if i haven't checked google earlier. According to the rest of your post: That's understandable. But the photos I'm searching for are the ones, that were not necessarily taken by photographers with their "name", but still they are considerably "awesome" and appealing to the eye. What's more, it would be crucial when the photos were taken with no intention to be edited.

Even before digital photography, think of all the different film types available to the photographer, including the likes of kodak instamatic cameras. The film had already been treated for special consideration.

 

[manaheim]

Please don't treat me like a moron, i wouldn't ask if i haven't checked google earlier. According to the rest of your post: That's understandable. But the photos I'm searching for are the ones, that were not necessarily taken by photographers with their "name", but still they are considerably "awesome" and appealing to the eye. What's more, it would be crucial when the photos were taken with no intention to be edited.

Welcome to the forum! Glad to have you here!

:thumbdown:

 

[Derrel]

Please don't treat me like a moron, i wouldn't ask if i haven't checked google earlier. According to the rest of your post: That's understandable. But the photos I'm searching for are the ones, that were not necessarily taken by photographers with their "name", but still they are considerably "awesome" and appealing to the eye. What's more, it would be crucial when the photos were taken with no intention to be edited.

There's a bunch of unedited pics on Flickr. Millions of them. You'll needd to search through millions of edited ones to arrive at millions of unedited ones.

OR you can use Google, you know the search engine, to come up with the Flickr group specializing in unedited, SOOC images....

http://www.flickr.com/groups/funkyfreshmonday/

 

[table1349]

Please don't treat me like a moron, i wouldn't ask if i haven't checked google earlier. According to the rest of your post: That's understandable. But the photos I'm searching for are the ones, that were not necessarily taken by photographers with their "name", but still they are considerably "awesome" and appealing to the eye. What's more, it would be crucial when the photos were taken with no intention to be edited.

There's a bunch of unedited pics on Flickr. Millions of them. You'll needd to search through millions of edited ones to arrive at millions of unedited ones.

OR you can use Google, you know the search engine, to come up with the Flickr group specializing in unedited, SOOC images....

Flickr: F.F.U.P Funky Fresh Unedited Photos

But are they "awesome, & appealing to the eye?" And if they are in .jpg then there is really no way of knowing if they are truly un-edited.